Digital or 35mm film?

Ant · Oct 26, 2004

Big Mike said:
. If you simply compare number of shots, digital had a big advantage because you will naturally shoot more

I think that's the huge advantage of digital. There was a discussion on the Nikonians forum about some guy who's shot the equivalent of 36 rolls of 36 exposure film every day for 3 months on a D70. You simply wouldn't do that with film, and if you tried it would be prohibitively expensive. That's what digital allows you to do though.

danalec99 · Oct 26, 2004

Big Mike said:
By they time your costs do catch up...some or all of your digital investment will obsolete or in need of an upgrade. Film technology is much more stable and therefore a safer investment.

What he said.

Digital technology IMO is still in its infancy. Till it reaches its reasonable maturity level, we will have to struggle with their marketing games, which would purely be a choice. I'm not blaming the technology. What is the major difference between a 300D and a 10D? I would say 'Marketing'. Now one can get a 10D for the price of a 300D. I don't think the idea for 20D was formed in January 2004. We are preys to their marketing ploys.

Ant · Oct 26, 2004

Hmmm. I've just done a few rough calculations and I'm even more sure that digital is cheaper in the long run.

I was looking for a Nikon film SLR body. I wanted it to be as similar, feature wise, to my D70 and the F80 looks to be the one.

Price for F80 £300. Price for D70 £800

The average price for a decent roll of 36exp film is about £8. That means that I get about 2250 shots before I get to the price of a D70....and that's without development costs. I reckon that the D70 will have easily paid for itself compared to film in a year. I plan to keep mine for at least two years, probably more...that's quite a saving. And even if I do buy the latest DSLR in two years time I'm still saving against film.

That's not even taking into account the fact that I don't have to waste film bracketing because I can see the shot right after I've taken it and simply reshoot if the exposure is out.

danalec99 · Oct 26, 2004

santino said:
true, but then I can say I will get myself medium format if I had a 35mm SLR cause it's higher quality. If I say a 10D is enough then it's enough, cause if I would think like that, I shouldn't by myself a computer etc. actually nothing whats digital

You are right. With film, one can buy an MF and be happy with the quality.
But with digital, as far as I know, there is not a "consumer level" digital camera in the market yet, which gives you a MF quality. Yep, there are digital backs for MF ($25K :wink:

)

A Pro upgrades (digital) each year. So, the amount a film pro spends on film & developing would be more or less equal to the digital upgrades which would include both the equipment and the software. Cost could be a factor in the short run, but in the long run, I think it is more or less the same.
BTW, this applies only to the full-fledged pros who seeks better quality each year.

But if we are happy with the DSLRs we have now, the only expense would be the CF Cards, and the software upgrade.

Big Mike · Oct 26, 2004

Ant said:
Price for F80 £300. Price for D70 £800

Yes, but did you take into account the cost of a memory card or two, three, four? How about a computer? Software? Printer & ink? CD's and other storage media.

Now if you keep your camera for two years, or three years, will the computer & software still be top of the line? The should still work but there will be better models available for less than you paid for yours.

I agree that digital has a huge advantage because you can shoot more and also check your shots to avoid some of the guess work of film. But just because you shoot more shots does not mean you are necessarily going to get better shots. Just ask someone who shoots large format film

Ant · Oct 26, 2004

Yes, but did you take into account the cost of a memory card or two, three, four? How about a computer? Software? Printer & ink? CD's and other storage media.

No, but then, as I said, I didn't take into account the cost of developing the film...and for 2000 shots that's not going to be cheap. :wink:

Also don't forget the physical aspect. actually finding room to store 1000s of 35mm photos may not have a hard financial figure attached but it's a pain. Far easier to have them exclusively on optical media, particularly if you don't want a hard copy of every shot.

As for computer, software etc. I've already got those regardless of camera so they aren't really added costs for me. And given the high amount of personal PC ownership I should imagine that's the case for a lot of people.

Now if you keep your camera for two years, or three years, will the computer & software still be top of the line?

They don't need to be top of the line, they just need to work, and they'll do that for another three years easily. Also, upgrading my PC is something I'd do even without a camera, so that's not really a direct cost.

But just because you shoot more shots does not mean you are necessarily going to get better shots. Just ask someone who shoots large format film

True, but for somebody like me, who isn't great at photography. I'll get a higher chance of one or two good shots if I take 400 photos than if I only take 36 :lol:

Big Mike · Oct 26, 2004

For the record...I agree with all your points. I just wanted to play the other side of the argument.

If you are are going to say that you already have a computer and software...someone could say that they already have 600 rolls of film in their fridge and already have a film camera with 20 lenses.

I get your point that most everyone already uses a computer...but if we are going to consider cost vs cost...it has to be at least in the picture.

As I said, I would buy a DSLR today if I could.

Ant · Oct 26, 2004

For the record...I agree with all your points. I just wanted to play the other side of the argument.

I know the feeling. I get the urge to play devil's advocate all the time

If you are are going to say that you already have a computer and software...someone could say that they already have 600 rolls of film in their fridge and already have a film camera with 20 lenses.

Not really. A computer can be used for all sorts of things. A person could never touch a digital camera in his whole life yet still use a computer productively every day. There's only really one thing you can do with film and lenses.

Claiming that the cost of a PC has to be counted in the cost of a digital camera is a little like saying that a TV set costs £150,000....because you've got to have a house with an electrical supply to put it in.

People already have houses for reasons entirely unrelated to buying a TV, the same way that people are already using PCs for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with digital photography.

Digital photography has taken off because people already had PCs. People aren't buying PCs because they've just bought themselves a digital camera.

Horse, cart. Cart, horse :lol:

I get your point that most everyone already uses a computer...but if we are going to consider cost vs cost...it has to be at least in the picture

No it doesn't. See previous point :wink:

Big Mike · Oct 26, 2004

Good points...but I still think it has to be a consideration.

Take me for example. If I got a DSLR, I would fill up my hard drive in about 10 minutes. It would take me 3 minutes just to open a 6MP file in any software application. Therefore I would need to upgrade.

Sure I would use the computer for lots of other things...but lets say that 25% of my use is digital images. So I would therefore consider 25% of the computer costs to be part of the cost of buying/owning the DSLR.

Ant · Oct 26, 2004

Yes. In your particular case that would be true.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum. Buying a DSLR hasn't effected my PC costs at all, and my storage costs barely...given the dirt cheap price of CD-Rs

Using a film SLR would definitely be a lot more expensive for me.

Maybe given the average you would have to take some PC costs into account.

I still think it's cheaper than film in the long run though, primarily because you can go and shoot 1000s of shots for no extra cost once your initial outlay is considered.

Axel · Oct 30, 2004

I should obviously thank you all for the contribution! I haven't participated a lot since I was the one with my doubts and some of them may be straightened out now, others remain...

Thank y'all

jadin · Oct 30, 2004

danalec99 said:
Digital technology IMO is still in its infancy. Till it reaches its reasonable maturity level, we will have to struggle with their marketing games, which would purely be a choice.

Not a chance! Take a look at computers. Every 18 months the technology virtually doubles in power / speed / capacity. Digital camera's aren't going to slow down anytime soon either. When Moore's Law was first stated it was in 1965. And it's kept true (for the most part) up to today. I'd say digital camera's will follow the same path for decades to come.

The marketing games will never cease, and the technology won't either. If you're going to play the digital game, buy the best you can afford, and be happy with it for as long as you can. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting, since their will always be something 'just around the bend' worth waiting for. You really have to just put on blinders and pretend it doesn't exsist.

And when you're finally ready to upgrade a few years down the line, your new purchase will be exponentially better.

I love everything about digital. For me the best part is the fact that you're skipping stages. As someone who publishs primarily on the web, putting my image to analog (film) and converting it to digital is losing part of the quality in the conversion. Just like if you take a record and make an mp3 out of it, the record will always sound better. So for me it makes a ton more sense to just photograph in digital, and once that shutter snaps, I won't lose a drop of quality. Ever.

There's more I could write, but I need to run. Cheers.

ksmattfish · Oct 30, 2004

Ant said:
Also don't forget the physical aspect. actually finding room to store 1000s of 35mm photos may not have a hard financial figure attached but it's a pain. Far easier to have them exclusively on optical media, particularly if you don't want a hard copy of every shot.

For most film users the actual physical existance of film is usually considered a positive aspect. Having my images stored in a purely digital state terrifies me.

danalec99 · Oct 30, 2004

jadin said:
danalec99 said:

Digital technology IMO is still in its infancy. Till it reaches its reasonable maturity level, we will have to struggle with their marketing games, which would purely be a choice.

Click to expand...

Not a chance! Take a look at computers. Every 18 months the technology virtually doubles in power / speed / capacity. Digital camera's aren't going to slow down anytime soon either. When Moore's Law was first stated it was in 1965. And it's kept true (for the most part) up to today. I'd say digital camera's will follow the same path for decades to come.

The marketing games will never cease, and the technology won't either. If you're going to play the digital game, buy the best you can afford, and be happy with it for as long as you can. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting, since their will always be something 'just around the bend' worth waiting for. You really have to just put on blinders and pretend it doesn't exsist. And when you're finally ready to upgrade a few years down the line, your new purchase will be exponentially better.

I love everything about digital. For me the best part is the fact that you're skipping stages. As someone who publishs primarily on the web, putting my image to analog (film) and converting it to digital is losing part of the quality in the conversion. Just like if you take a record and make an mp3 out of it, the record will always sound better. So for me it makes a ton more sense to just photograph in digital, and once that shutter snaps, I won't lose a drop of quality. Ever.

There's more I could write, but I need to run. Cheers.